Re: You came to see a rock show, a big gigantic cock show...

posted by [identity profile] sashagoblin.livejournal.com at 10:24pm on 01/01/2010
I just hae considerably more respect for pop as an art form when it's an authentic expression of an individual vision raher than a staged process where those responsible for the creationof a particular track or melody or lyrics aren't the ones who perform, usually because they have the wrong image,or whatever. Performane is interpretation, but a cover of a song already in the public eye, sometimes with the creator's consent, is different from he manufactured pop of a fw overtanned young celebrity wannabes being fed someoe else's creations because they look the part. And there's something that comes from life and professional experience even in covering a song - take the contrast between, say, ld lang's hallelujah and alexandra x-factor's. (I mean, what the hell was that about? she had a good voicem but no creative or interpretive spark at all, and it was just a pointless exercise.) Manufactured pop is just a travesty of something that can be real and meaingful and true, and for all that LG uses the tropes of manufactured pop, she uses her own ability to manifest contemporary expectations, celebrity archetypes, to undermine heir usual anodyne meanings. Which is why I thinkshe manages to do something that Peaches, however awesome, doesn't - because she's outside the contemporary body ideals,behaviour types, etc, she stands in opposition to the culture that imposes them, whereas Gaa can bring them down rom he inside, so to speak. Gaga ewmbodies them, and uses her abilty to do so to subvert them. And it's true that she worked her way up on pure talent and determination, she didn't just look good and get somebody else's songs handed to her on a plate, and i *respect* that. More than i would if she was a model that fell into singing by accident. She's clever and she's got her own ideas...
[parent entry] [link] [parent] [reply]
 

Re: You came to see a rock show, a big gigantic cock show...

posted by [identity profile] friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com at 10:48pm on 01/01/2010
I just hae considerably more respect for pop as an art form when it's an authentic expression of an individual vision raher than a staged process where those responsible for the creationof a particular track or melody or lyrics aren't the ones who perform, usually because they have the wrong image,or whatever.

Why? People have been covering each other's work since time immemorial. The notion of "authenticity" in art is as bizarre as the notion of "purity" - cf the book "Faking It", which analyses this particular obsession and reveals the confusion underlying it.

I suspect we're coming at this from very different perspectives. For me, the idea of authenticity in popular music sets up an artificial binary system in which one category of performers is lauded and the other attacked, on the basis of external factors agreed by the self-appointed group of taste-makers (it's no coincidence that these modes of discourse often crystallise around particular points of gender, race & class, either - DEFINITELY read "The Sex Revolts" for more about this). Not only that, but our notions about what fits in what category shifts as tastes do (see, for example, opinions about sampling or rapping in the 1980s from Proper Rock Critics), but there always has to be an "out" group. A hell of a lot of these ideas have been applied downwards from those who see themselves as the victors of musical history, or are damn bitter because they think they should be, since they're supporting "real" music, not "manufactured crap".

If you haven't read much about the frequently heated debates on Rockism, then I definitely recommend doing so. It's very interesting (oh, and while I loathe Paul Morley, his linked article is worth a butchers).

As to the possibility of getting at culture from the inside, fifth-column style, I'm not really sure about the usefulness of that. It's certainly a concept punk laughed at, and it's no coincidence that Guy Debord was an inspiration there. Now, it's reasonable to argue that Gaga represents that kind of constructed situation he suggests, a radical construction which brings about change through its presentation to its spectators, but I'm not so sure. I've never really believed in his solution (I think the Spectacle is far too ingrained to be that easily disrupted), not least because mass capitalism has been co-opting radical artistic gestures for centuries, and getting better at it all the time. And if I did believe in Debord's solutions, I still wouldn't believe Gaga represented a sufficiently rupturing presence to make any of that happen - she's good, but she ain't that good, and she IS essentially working within an established framework.

Now, that's not to say I don't like her, because I do. But my criteria for liking music come down to "Do I enjoy this?", not "Do I think this is Good Music?". Levels of authenticity are an unhelpful distraction to me, a Manichean "them v us" set-up which actively spoils enjoyment (FWIW, I don't like either version of "Hallelujah", but then I'm not massively fond of the original either. I generally like Leonard Cohen a lot, though).

Damn, I really must get you to read Chuck Eddy, don't know if you'd like him but he can be highly distracting.

[link] [parent] [reply]
 

Re: You came to see a rock show, a big gigantic cock show...

posted by [identity profile] friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com at 10:49pm on 01/01/2010
Hm.

Where would a band like the Manic Street Preachers fall on the spectrum of authenticity?
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

Re: You came to see a rock show, a big gigantic cock show...

posted by [identity profile] friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com at 10:56pm on 01/01/2010
Further:

Relevant extract from Sanneh's very famous 2004 article about rockism...

But as more than one online ranter has discovered, it's easier to complain about rockism than it is to get rid of it. You literally can't fight rockism, because the language of righteous struggle is the language of rockism itself. You can argue that the shape-shifting feminist hip-pop of Ms. Aguilera is every bit as radical as the punk rock of the 1970's (and it is), but then you haven't challenged any of the old rockist questions (starting with: Who's more radical?), you've just scribbled in some new answers.

Pertinent?
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

Re: You came to see a rock show, a big gigantic cock show...

posted by [identity profile] sashagoblin.livejournal.com at 11:31pm on 01/01/2010
I'mnot sure quite what you mean by 'rockism', i'll read and get back to you. But the authenticity thing - it's because i am, instnctively,moved by people expressing their emotions. That simple. hat's why i obsess about bandls like Pulp and Placebo who manage to emote and analyse simultaneously. And if what perfrmer/s express is a series of dance moves set to a track constructed by someone else, they're not doing that. Covering a song, often, they are, and often commenting on contemporary culture as well - the travis britney covers, f'rinstance, or even some of the amateur covers on youtube, feel real because there's obvious feeling there and enagement with the song, not simply an attempt to make money (this is particularly true in the case of amateur covers).

But as you say, it's not about theory, for me, it's about 'do i like this, does it speak to me?' and Gaga does, for reasons outlined above. And hell, she's been thinking about and creaig and writing in the genre she creates since she was about 14 - she cares passionately about it, and about those who supported her, and i respect that. And it's a positive relief in the gym when one of her videos comes on,becaue despite the endless parade of body types akin to hers, she uses her incredibly OTT styling combined with genuinely good - catchy, emotive, driving - songs to draw attention to the artificiality of such constructions, and i think that's very useful. (plus, she's not that thin!) She's obviously bright, engaged with what she does and her own representation, and enjoying it, and i enjoy that.

get me to read things. Yes! x
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

Re: You came to see a rock show, a big gigantic cock show...

posted by [identity profile] friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com at 12:34am on 02/01/2010
I think it's a mistake to suggest that performing "series of dance moves set to a track constructed by someone else" is not about expressing emotion. I find dancing quite an emotional activity, myself.

Why is making money any less "real" a purpose for art? It's madness to suggest that music-making isn't inextricably part of the activity of mass capitalism. Hell, isn't it this PRECISE intersection which motivated the ultimate pop critique/capitulation in "Skank Bloc Bologna"? And that was 30+ years ago.

Oh yeah, speaking of which: sorry to recommend more Simon Reynolds but srsly, read read read 'Rip It Up And Start Again', which you can get in Fopp for about 3 quid now. You CANNOT go wrong, even though Reynolds is quite infuriating, with this as a primer for thinking about the intersection of music and politics in the morass of uncertainty after punk's swaggering Year Zero. This stuff is all in there.

Also, the work of Jon Savage is really instructional. 'England's Dreaming', his book about punk, is fucking MASSIVE. I read it when I was 17, I think, or maybe just 18, and it changed the way I thought about music. He's also written another huge tome about the construction of "the teenager" from the mid-19th to the mid-20th centuries, which I've only read a little of but it lovely.

You definitely, definitely need to read up around rockism, because this really is one of those huge defining conversations of the last couple of decades, and especially the last few years, and this conversation is all about the analytical techniques of rockism. It's hugely instructional in many ways, even if rockism, like essentialism, is something very few people will admit to. I was very pleased when a friend told me the word about 6 years ago, because I was overjoyed to have a simple explanation for the collection of Things Which Pissed Me Off about people's attitudes to music - and believe me, the goth scenes I've known have been chock-full of rockism.

I must get you and [livejournal.com profile] plumsbitch talking about this at some point but, as I said, I've very happy to rant about this more over tea and cake :-)
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

Re: You came to see a rock show, a big gigantic cock show...

posted by [identity profile] sashagoblin.livejournal.com at 08:19am on 02/01/2010
:oP ys. i will STOP RAING AT YOU ONLIE ad we'll do it in person sometime, dammit.But ooh, daning as emoional? Dancing is one of the very few placess i go to get away from my thinking, feeling, aalytical self (and yes, they're all in a bundle for me, i don't feel without consciously leting it drive me, etc.) But it's likew rough sex and exercise - one of very, very few sanctuaries from emotion. My body runs it and i lose myself, and that's precious.

Just Dance, in fact. Hmm. ;oP xxx
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

Re: You came to see a rock show, a big gigantic cock show...

posted by [identity profile] friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com at 10:47am on 02/01/2010
Hey, I'm not saying it's that way for everyone, but it definitely is for some people.

I am totes happy to discuss this online, but I think it's a lot harder to be nuanced and talk about all the various dimensions of STUFF. Do read the linked article, and prob the Morley one on the Wikipedia entry, they're a useful starting point.
[link] [parent] [reply]

November

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
    1
 
 2
 
 3
 
 4
 
 5
 
6
 
 7
 
 8
 
 9
 
 10
 
 11
 
 12
 
13
 
 14
 
 15
 
 16
 
 17
 
 18
 
 19
 
20
 
 21
1
 22
 
 23
 
 24
 
 25
 
 26
 
27
 
 28
 
 29
 
 30